Saturday, March 4, 2017

The above image is of a bombed out building somewhere in
Syria.The title is ‘Bringers of the New
Dawn’ which is a play on a new age book by a similar name called ‘Bringers of
the Dawn.’My fascination with new age
material, politics and religion are mixed together in this image.On the right is a list of all the dates that
were prophesized for the end of the world.The list is broken up into dates that are specific down to the day they
were to occur and dates that are more ambiguous, usually just a year, meaning
that the prophecy was to become true sometime in that year.What is interesting is that there are
centuries where prophecies of the end of the world were more common, for
example in the 17th century, when the year 1666 was
approaching.The obvious reason for this
is that in Christian mythology the number of the beast from Revelation is 666.
The closer to our time the dates get, the more specific they get.For one reason or another, modern science and
the enlightenment seems to have had influence on the way that the end of the
world was calculated.With the more
rational side of humanity coming to the fore, Christianity found it necessary
to become more specific even in its prophecies. Not only this, the prophecies increased,
to something like double in the 20th century, especially toward the
end of the century and close to the year 2012.On his own, Harold Camping was responsible for at least 4-6 prophecies
of the end.

What the image brings together is a type of anxiety about
the future.Where in the past this
anxiety was produced and assuaged by religion and the priesthood, with the age
of reason and enlightenment, anxiety about what is uncertain became entwined
with the new belief system in progress.Progress itself created the conditions under which uncertainty increased
and so did anxiety about what would happen next.This proved to be a fertile ground for the
imaginings of the future by people that wanted to control it.These ‘Bringers of the New Dawn’ are tied to
the neo-conservative and neo-liberal movements, each wanting to control the
destiny of a whole society in their own specific way, usually through economics
and ideology.More specifically, at the
end of the 20th century, the neo-conservatives drafted and put
together a think tank The Project for a New American Century (PNAC).This think tank produced a publication in
which it outlined the way in which the US was to become the major player in
global politics and economics through perpetual warfare.Though already decades in the process, the
PNAC sought to destabilize the Middle-East and draw an alliance with Israel,
based on an ancient prophecy of the second coming of Christ.According to the prophecy, the second coming
would occur only if a number of key events happened, one of which was the
establishment of the homeland of the Israelites, another of which was the
destruction of the Isrealites themselves.With many of the bullet point on the prophecy list checked off, the PNAC
wanted to speed up the process by fomenting wars and pitting neighbors against
each other in the Middle-East.Eternal
paradise would be achieved only through a process of war and suffering. This is of course eerily similar to the
prophecies of the Thousand Year Reich that the Nazis wanted to create in the
wake of a hostile war for world domination. Fantasies of life without
suffering, in which only the best and the brightest are allowed to live and breed,
are always wrapped in a mythology of heroic deeds, trials and tribulations.
They are meant to be life lessons, but in reality they take on sinister
dimensions of violence fueled by fundamentalist misunderstanding of the texts.Fundamentalists almost always believe that
what they are doing is right and just, no matter what the means and at what
cost to others surrounding them.They
believe that they are the true inheritors of knowledge and power and thus the ‘Bringers
of the New Dawn.’

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Ok, it may
seem a bit ironic that I am in a lot of ways somebody that is concerned with
everything that underlies a surface to the detriment of the surface itself and
then go about making work that for all intents and purposes is almost nothing
but surface itself. These are mere appearances I claim.And yes, to be completely truthful here, I
love the surface when there is something to look at.What am I talking about here?

Let’s suppose you take a drive through LA or New York City.
What do you see?Probably lots of
buildings, people, concrete, streets, windows, neighborhoods and so on.There is a lot of industry and industrial
areas, places that are on the upswing and on the downswing, gentrification and
lots of grit.Yes, it’s the grit that is
most often ignored and later romanticized once it’s swept away, that’s the
march of culture through the streets and that was the march of civilization
through the ‘wilderness’ of the uncharted territories.The grit is here and now, but how seldom that
gets shown is almost staggering. Though there are obvious purveyors of grit,
one may not know or realize this when casually thinking about the concept of
what constitutes a New York or LA art scene.There may in fact be the opposite happening, the slicked surface
treatments of a once flashy popism, the ‘controversial’ application of household
goods and foodstuffs to canvases, or the somewhat tried and true but tired soft
sculpture fiber arts turned painting that betrays its homages to Oldenburg.I saw a kind of ‘grit’ on display during a
Trecartin show at Regen Projects that was anything but a cleaned up attempt at
authenticity coming from experience that read more like a high fiving session
after a viral video campaign aimed at helping the ‘underprivileged.’ This
sounds cynical, and it should, because the new cynicism is exactly this, a
gentrified version of the real thing for the safe consumption of the moneyed
classes.

But this is not all there is and surface does have a redeeming
quality.Even a slick surface is rife
with meaning when handled properly and not for its all too obvious function as
a ‘comment’ on pop culture.I am more
closely aligned with the distressed surfaces of a Leonardo Drew installation
than the supposed roughness of Sterling Ruby (though I do enjoy some of his
work).

The roughness of my paintings is seductive in some way, at
least I’ve heard as much.It’s hard to
be one’s own critic sometimes and very easy on other occasions.In these pieces I wanted to have the surface
speak for itself while giving it air to breathe.The paintings sit on top as much as they are
a part of the surface itself.The images
are taken from local fires, sometimes of ruins and landscapes.The clouds themselves have a surface that is
bulbous and almost opulent in appearance but this gets betrayed by the fact
that the surface is itself an illusion, you can’t actually touch it.The smoke or ash clouds are represented on
the surface of the painting by actual ashes rubbed into the surface after
burning, a redoubling of the subject as such.But ashes are much more than this too.They are remainders and a type of memory of the objects they once were.
Something about ashes is very powerful t the mind because within are housed
memories and emotions tied to events of fire and the type of reverie that
spring from it.It’s this remainder that
one has to question.What was it that
gave it its form, what had to be burned down to make this possible?Of course the answers could be anything since
most materials will burn down to this substance in a high enough blaze.Alchemically, the ashes also hold all of the
necessary information, an imprint, of its previous incarnation resulting in its
‘salt’ or seed. And just like the fire that burns down anything into ashes, it’s
a force that can heat food and keep us warm.The ashes become the ‘seed’ for the next generation of plant life and so
on.Perhaps Gaston Bachelard summarized
fire in the best possible way by saying that fire ‘shines in heaven and burns
in hell.’

Saturday, February 11, 2017

I do not subscribe to this idea that one medium is inferior
to another, that because of personal preference or belief in the superiority of
a medium one can privilege one over the other.Typically this kind of privileging has to do with one’s belief in
commodification or authenticity or even identity (gender roles or otherwise).
Within each medium is a notion of the pure and authentic vs the commodified and
naturalized, the radical vs the reactionary, the medium of action vs the
reactive medium (if you like Nietzche for example).I also don’t subscribe to the notion of
radical art as coming only from the ‘less privileged’ or the ‘marginalized’
mediums.This, in a complete 360 degree
turn manages only to privilege those forms of art vs the others, not in any
sort of radical shift, but rather in a totally normalized way.Privileging certain forms of art turns those
forms into the ‘Other.’Given the amount
of time, space, media attention that these ‘other’ mediums receive in the
institutional system and outside of it, this argument is completely out of its
own element.What am I talking about
specifically?Since the late 1960s the
‘marginal’ mediums have historically been performance, video, installation,
conceptual, and ephemeral art.Institutions typically refer to the university, the museum, the
gallery.Interestingly however, because
of the institutionalization of theory via its embedding within the university
in the 1970s, these marginal mediums became the preferred mediums of the
institutions themselves.This did not
happen overnight, but to be certain, video art is today no less inferior than
painting, and sculpture is not less superior than performance.The institutionalization of all these media
made certain that the edge that each once had have been thoroughly blunted and
the radical was turned into the merely consequential.What seems like an innocuous enough notion of
levelling of the playing field appears in actuality as a push for the
privileging of a different form of art. But why?If identity politics is to be believed the
reason for this privileging of the ‘other’ media is not because of what they
are but because of what they represent.Painting and sculpture represent the old world, the conservative,
hierarchical, patriarchal system of oppression while performance and video
represent progress and inclusivity.The
strangest operation is at work here however.While ephemeral arts seem to operate in the realm of equality and
universality while contending that painting and sculpture might in some way be
elitist because of their ties to money, such as corporate funds, private
collections, and so on (and this is in fact true, but this is not why they are
elitist), they themselves focus on particularity in the forms of identity as
opposed to the universalist ideals of their earlier incarnations, becoming
elitist in their own right.

Personally I believe that identity theory is anything but a usable
theory for going forward.Identity
politics with its focus on the body, gender, orientation, race, only deflects
the issues without solving any of them.It is a dead end in the institutionalized knowledge and commercial
structure of the art world.While I
understand the urgency and vehemence of the proponents and I am absolutely
behind the struggle for equality for all races and genders, I believe that this
is a fight that cannot be fought and won in the realm of art, at least not
until major ruptures and cracks appear in the institutional system.We must remember that systems are created to
absorb and nullify dissent.What are we
accomplishing by creating an institution out of identity politics?Only an arena in which individuals must
prostrate themselves within a guilt ridden spectacle of a type of struggle
session that leaves everyone equally guilty and equally culpable.

So this is why I paint.It is not a political or social belief, but rather a belief in the
medium itself as a vehicle for a deeper truth, and this goes for all other
mediums.Each medium has within it the
potential for a deeper meaning and a type of truth that is masked by the false
consciousness that we give it when we make it into an institution. The new paintings are a result of years of
trial and error, thinking and experience and lots of reading.By going through many mediums I’ve arrived a
point in which I was able to get rid of a lot of excessive ‘stuff’ like color
and the need to say everything all at once in every piece.The work is narrowed and shows bit by bit the
whole picture.While these paintings are
mostly of smoke clouds from local wildfires, painted from photographs I took
myself, they refer to much more than that, memory, nostalgia, the terrible and
the beautiful sides of nature and so on.The truth is somewhere in there, but very difficult to dig out.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

If the last post was an indicator of what is to come, I can
only assure you that what I see on the horizon is not very pretty.We are living in interesting, if chaotic
times, and not only due to the election of reality star and megalomaniac Donald
Trump whose track record is the sucking of money out of the environment and
culture that supports him and then making the banks, and us who support the
banks with our labor and value, pay for it.To be absolutely clear, former president Obama’s track record is equally
abysmal, with the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan, the bailout of
banks and creditors instead of the people, caving in to the corporations and
insurance mafia to produce a dysfunctional system of healthcare, that is
neither used for health or for care, rather for the enriching of the few
providers who now have a virtual monopoly on healthcare in every state, for the
continued and growing debt of the student population, that will only get worse
with the installment of Trump in office whose entire modus operandi circles
around a ritualized belief in the markets and business as the panacea for all
national ills.Why do I mention this?Isn’t this the absolutely homogenized
narrative of the supposed ‘liberal’ media that want you to believe that their
way is the only way, or the opposite of this narrative brought to you via Alex
Jones, Infowars and the normalized conspiracy theories that more and more
reflect the state of affairs as such? What, if anything are we learning by
exposing the lunacy of our supposed leaders? I am always of the opinion that if
there was a choice between voting for candidate one or two, the obvious choice
for me is always option number three, nobody.I’d rather not be led anywhere.The idea of a leader is a sure fire way to be led into disaster or
oblivion.But again, why do I mention
Trump or Obama when there are literally hundreds of thousands of hours of media
regurgitation devoted to this subject?The answer is simple, tiny houses.

Some years ago I was predicting that the tiny house movement
is doomed before it even begun.These
days the reality of my prediction is slowly coming true.Ok, I realize I’m not Nostradamus and when I
say ‘predicted’ I really just mean ‘inferred.’I simply saw the idea and movement of the tiny house as untenable.What I hoped for was to be pleasantly
surprised that such a thing would not happen.Unfortunately, this turned out not to be the case. I am not at all surprised by the turn of
events, but let’s just go over a few examples of what’s been going on.As you might know the tiny house movement was
started by a few enthusiasts that wanted to simplify their lives in the face of
the growing discontent and bloating of capitalism.The movement stood against the marketization
and monetization of particular lifestyles.Inspired in part by Henry David Thoreau and E. F. Schumacher’s book on
economics ‘Small is Beautiful,’ the movement eschews all that is sacred to
modern capitalism, desire for money, possessions, growth, domination, and
instead focuses on a return to a modest or moderate state of being and living
in harmony with the surrounding environment.There are issues with this type of romanticism, but at its core the
movement’s heart is in the right place.Reduce the footprint, reduce the amount of stuff, downsize, pay less,
enjoy more, think more, believe more, that is the formula of the endless
numbers of little Thoreaus that attempted to live this kind of life style.The one particular issue that I tend to pick
with the tiny house dwellers is that, like the modern so-called ‘minimalists,
they are unfortunately taking the issue to its absolute opposite and
unsustainable end, in a very traditional American fashion, and in this very
traditional American fashion some are not above attempting to sell their belief
to the rest of humanity as not just a way to be, but rather as ‘the’ way to be,
engaging in another type of emotional blackmail similar to the greenwashing of
globalist corporations some ten years ago.

Consider this, there are tiny homes for sale for the hefty
price of $72,000 at less than 200 square feet, actually making the tiny house
more expensive per foot than its larger counterpart. What you get for this price is a ‘luxury tiny
home’ with all modern amenities, wifi enabled lights and appliances, high end
materials that will leave you wanting nothing of the civilization that you are
supposedly leaving behind.Two years ago
I saw a Craigslist ad for a tiny house for rent in the back of someone’s
property in Asheville, North Carolina for $1500/month.There are dozens in not hundreds of
architects and corporations working on mass producing and commodifying tiny houses
for simple consumption.High profile
magazines like Dwell regularly print articles on middle to upper-middle class
families ‘escaping’ the grind to their tiny houses. If Thoreau was alive today,
surely he would puke in his pantaloons.

The problem I see is that among the countless articles and
documentaries on the wonderful world of tiny homes and their occupants, there
are virtually no longitudinal studies of the effects of long term habitation of
small, foundation-less homes on those that live in them.There is no clear picture here of what will
happen to the children that will be one day born and will live crammed in with
their parents. The lives of the
occupants are human after all, and with this type of humanity come
interpersonal and emotional issues.While there is nothing inherently wrong with tiny homes, what exactly is
wrong with the idea of just a small house?I’ve studied cabins and cabin life for some time so I think I have a
little to say about this phenomenon.I
grew up in a mountain cabin that was shared by my family, but it was big enough
to accommodate something like 10 people at a time if need be, thick walls, wood
stove and all.I am a big proponent of
simple living but not at the cost having it sold back to me as a
commodity.

Memory is a tough nut to crack.We don’t remember what generations before us
had to go through or endure and that is why we must endure ourselves. We are
the cause of our own anguish and happiness, and even if someone from the future
travelled to meet us and tell us exactly what we should change about ourselves
and our behavior so as to avoid certain outcomes, we would not be able to do it
because we are creatures of habit and purveyors of the now.There present is all there is and the
ramifications of the past or the future hold no sway over the actions of the
civilized.The clouds are closing in and
as during the Dust Bowl we are able to see them coming but have absolutely no
way of holding them back.